Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) set up to unveil her new and improved "Assault Weapons Ban" bill today in Washington, D.C. With a display of 10 semi-automatic weapons, which she did obtain permission from both D.C. police and Capitol Hill police, Feinstein promoted her bill.
Obviously she did something that David Gregory didn't do and that was obtain permission from the police to display items that are banned by law in D.C., though quite honestly it made no difference in Gregory's case because he was not arrested or prosecuted for his blatant violation of the law. But keep in mind veterans are thrown in jail for violating similar laws.
Notice that the CNN host calls this "theatrics." This is nothing more than appeal to emotion. It is not an appeal to the mind and that is what liberals have picked up on.
I would like to know where Sen. Feinstein obtained these weapons. Who was the person or persons that provided them to her for display? One thing to demonstrate the utter ridiculousness of even the permission given by police was a flimsy theater-style railing that was put up to keep people back from the display of weapons as part of the permission granted.
Today at her press conference to introduce the bill, Feinstein said, "The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time."
Feinstein said that she was "incensed that our weak gun laws allowed these mass killings to be carried out again and again and again in our country." Yes, we'll not that gun control laws like "Gun Free Zones" are a directly related to this issue, but we don't have weak gun laws.
"Weapons, designed originally for the military to kill large numbers of people in close combat, are replicated for civilian use," she blathered. "They fall into the hands, one way or another, of grievance killers, or gangs, or those who are mentally unstable or ill. They are sold out of trunks and backseats of automobiles in cities (and we might add sometimes with the federal government's approval and watchful eye as they pass into the hands of Mexican drug cartels and Al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria)."
Feinstein also attempted to say this happens at gun shows as well, "with no questions asked." Considering that prosecution doesn't follow through I would ask her what difference does it make?
While she listed several places where mass shootings have taken place, she wrongly stated that in each the shooter used a semi-automatic assault weapon or large capacity ammunition magazine. Friends, pay close attention here. This is the heart of the matter. The incident in Tucson was with a semi-automatic handgun, not a rifle. The weapons that are on the market in gun stores are simply firearms. They are not military weapons and they are not assault weapons.
"Military style assault weapons have but one purpose, and in my view, that is a military purpose, to hold at the hip, if possible, to spray fire, to be able to kill large numbers of people," she said, demonstrating her utter ignorance. First you don't hold the weapon at your hip. It is held up at the shoulder. We are a moral people so quite often our strikes are surgical and we attempt to minimize casualties by being very accurate. Thus, why weapons, such as the AR-15, were manufactured.
Now she claims that more than 350 people have been killed and 450 injured since her first assault weapons ban expired in 2004. She doesn't cite any source for her numbers and since her definition of "assault weapons" has increased to include semi-automatic handguns and shotguns, we should be suspicious of the Senator's comments here.
"Today," she said, "my colleagues and I are introducing a bill to prohibit the sale, transfer, manufacture, importation of 'assault weapons' and large capacity ammunition feeding devices that can accept more than ten rounds." With this legislation Sen. Feinstein is, in effect, doing just what the British did to the our Founding Fathers.
While she talks about the new weapons that have come out being more "lethal" and "technologically advanced" than previous models, what she fails to account for if the fact that is a good thing. It is good because the Second Amendment is about the people having arms to create a militia and you don't create militia with BB guns and .22 caliber weapons, but with similar arms to that of your opposition, which in the case of the Second Amendment, assumes that your opposition is an oppressive and tyrannical government. The reason it assumes that is because it includes the reason for the militia, "being necessary to the security of a free state."
She said that her previous bill limited rifles, handguns and shotguns to two military characteristics. However, in this legislation it has been limited to one.
On top of that, she is targeting the "slide iron stock," which makes the AR-15 mimic an automatic weapon. We commonly refer to it as a "bump stock." However, no worries, I'm currently developing a device to add that will not change or alter the stock, but provide the same results at a fraction of the price, giving you even greater control of the weapon. This and "thumb hold stocks" and "bullet buttons" are some of the "loopholes" she seeks to close in the bill.
This legislation also eliminates a 10 year sunset, which means it will be in effect perpetually.
She then tells us what it will not effect and note, the things she cites has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment. "It (the bill) will not effect hunting or sporting firearms. Instead the bill protects hunters and sportsmen by protecting 2,200 specifically named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes. They are by make and model exempted from the legislation."
Again, nothing in the Second Amendment about hunting and sports shooting. What the legislation should be about is protecting all arms, not some.
Finally she said that the bill will "subject existing or grandfathered weapons (these are weapons you already own) to a background check in the event the weapon is sold or transferred."
She doesn't tell you about the mandatory registration in a national database for those weapons and the additional $200 tax per weapon on those you already own, for obvious reasons.
While she talks about trying to recognize certain rights, none of those rights she spoke of are in the context of the Second Amendment. She says that "No weapon is taken from anyone." However, she makes clear what her intentions are, "The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time."
Senator Feinstein should be treated as a traitor by introducing this legislation as it violates her oath of office to support the Constitution and the Second Amendment. This is as direct an attack on the Second Amendment as the British were imposing upon our Founding Fathers and their arms prior to the War for Independence. Let's seek to solve this peacefully by flooding our Congressmen and Senators' offices demanding that they strike this legislation down and that they hold Senator Feinstein accountable for her actions. Here's a link to contact your representatives.
The NRA has responded to her legislation:
Senator Feinstein has been trying to ban guns from law-abiding citizens for decades. It's disappointing but not surprising that she is once again focused on curtailing the Constitution instead of prosecuting criminals or fixing our broken mental health system. The American people know gun bans do not work and we are confident Congress will reject Senator Feinstein's wrong-headed approach.